Friday, May 29, 2009

In a rare public showing of her second face, Joyce Meyer explains to CNN’s Larry King, how she “chose” heterosexuality (No doubt around the same time in her life that she chose to have white skin).

I used to love watching her sermons on TV. She had a sense of humor, and a way of taking the arcane language of the Bible and making its message very practical. Even if you took God and the Bible out of her sermons, The message would still stand - "Hurting people hurt people" is one of the quips that has stayed with me over the years.

Anyway, I haven't listened to her since I found out from her website just how anti-gay she is. I felt betrayed, not just because she was anti-gay, but because she never preached openly about it -- no doubt to maintain her gay and pro-gay coffers.

So when I saw her on this Larry King interview, her comments about her own heterosexuality, in regard to homosexuality, were the icing on that dung cake.

KING: Do you -- what are your thoughts when you say you love all people? What are your thoughts about -- you mentioned earlier judge not lest you be judged. Do you judge homosexuality?

MEYER: Well, I knew you'd ask me this, too.

KING: I think you're more of a psychic than a (INAUDIBLE).

MEYER: No...

KING: You knew something I didn't know, because I never know what I'm going to ask.

MEYER: But I kind of watch what you've been asking, those questions. Obviously, Larry, if I believe the Bible, then I don't believe that a gay lifestyle or a homosexual lifestyle is the right way to choose to live. I believe that there's something so much better.

KING: You believe it's a choice?

MEYER: I believe it's definitely a choice.

KING: So you chose heterosexuality?

MEYER: Yes.

KING: How did you choose it? Because I chose it, but I don't remember how I chose it. I mean, I'm heterosexual, but I don't know why I'm heterosexual.

MEYER: Yeah.

KING: I know that I'm heterosexual.

MEYER: Well, I think that that's the natural way that God intended us to be. I just followed the natural way that I was. I didn't have to consciously think, do I want to do this or don't I?

KING: So the people who are gay then chose it?

MEYER: I believe that, yes.

KING: Why would they choose it?

MEYER: I think a lot of different reasons. I believe a lot of people that are gay, had even had problems like I had in the past. I think they've been hurt by somebody from the opposite sex, and they don't know how to function right in those relationships.

When you're hurt very badly in your childhood, the area that it has the greatest effect on is relationships. Once you feel like you can't trust people, once you feel like that they don't care about you, that they're really not going to take care of you, it gets very difficult in relationships. And you know, I've been so mistreated by male authority in my life that I had a terrible time in my marriage trying to be a submissive wife, you know. I mean, I wanted to rule the roost in everything. And it wasn't even really that I was rebellious; I was afraid of being hurt. And I think that a lot of people that choose these alternative lifestyles, I think it's because they've been hurt somewhere along the line very badly.

KING: We'll be right back with Joyce Meyer. The book soon to come -- I'll ask about it -- "Approval Addiction" what does she mean by that after this.

But the award for the most vicious attack goes to Joyce Meyer, the TV preacher who co-sponsored the Christian Coalition’s national meeting. Meyer lambasted the constitutional concept as “really a deception of Satan.”

19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

So, God’s “divine plan” included incest and almost bestiality.

~~~

"It is the church's high calling to proclaim it ["redemptive message on homosexuality"] to those who need to hear it no matter what the cost may be."

IOW, it's a cause worth dying for, but all you have to do is speak up about it.

~~~

And to give credit where credit’s due:

Jeff Buchanan is a pastor and the Director of the Exodus Church Association(www.exoduschurchassociation.org), a national network of more than 120 churches helping those dealing with same-sex attraction to live a life that reflects the Christian faith.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE is a worldwide effort that encourages victims and offenders to meet. The program forces offenders to give a face to their crime, to feel remorse, and to understand the true repercussions of their actions.

This year over 700,000 inmates will be released from prison. More than 50% will be re-incarcerated within 3 years.

Where Restorative Justice is allowed to work, the re-incarceration rate drops to as little as 8%.

Apparently she writes music and sings too. This played over the credits: Coming Back to Life.__________Addendum:

On the subject, I recently had an experience that taught me a way to avoid judging people unnecessarily. I started a thread on the subject at SoulForce, highlighting my experience. The gist of it was this:

~I went to Blockbuster and an SUV stopped right behind my parked car and in my path. As I was making my way to the store, and angrily walking around the back of the truck, I saw that two people were crossing in front of the truck, and that that was why they were stopped.---That sort of thing has happened before, but this time it had more of an impact. I learned that too often, there are concrete reasons, that I may not know about, as to why people are mean sometimes (and yes, I’m including horrific acts). They may have been abused as a child, or just gotten in a fight with someone, it doesn’t matter, the point is that there’s a reason for their behavior. I certainly know this is true in my case, as I’m sure anyone can tell from my angry posts.

Whether or not the story is true, I’ve always aspired to be like Jesus as far as practicing the Golden Rule in every area of my life - including loving my enemies. By not judging the person, I avoid unfair condemnation of them, and in a very practical sense, I avoid not holding onto soul-destroying grudges. I’ve just started doing this, so I have a ways to go before it becomes habit.

This approach applies to other situations as well. For the past few weeks, A pair of ducks had been making a lot of noise outside my window. A few days ago I finally had had it and chased them away. As I went back to see if there were any more ducks still there, I saw that she had been sitting on a clutch of eggs the whole time, and that they were mates! I was mortified.

Fortunately she’s back now, and the lesson was brought home again…this time by a duck.

REP. ROSA DELAURO (D), CONNECTICUT: …But it is a combination -- as Tim Ryan pointed out -- of prevention, and if you don‘t want to deal with the issue of prevention or with contraception, then you may not be serious about wanting to reduce that need for abortions or unintended pregnancies.

~Hardball with Chris Matthews May 19, 2009

~~~

This is a reference post in regard to the abortion debate, reprinted (with a few modifications) from the Teach The Facts / Vigilance blog, in response to Theresa Rickman this anonymous commenter:

thanks for the reminder about the suffering caused by the liberal agenda's support for abortion

also, the suffering experienced by innocent disadvantaged inner city kids who have no choice but to attend dangerous schools and mix with violent gangs greatly dwarfs any suffering experienced by the evil conspirators in U.S. custody who are guilty of planning the death of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have shown no remorse

Jesse Jackson once called abortion racist because it disproportionately kills minority children

both abortion and no-choice schools are attacks on disadvantaged children in America

would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America

will they ever repent?

And now for my diatribe in response:

Anonymous: “would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America”

You know what would be even nicer - social conservatives getting a grip on reality. A long term memory wouldn’t hurt either.

~~~

Anonymous: “thanks for the reminder about the suffering caused by the liberal agenda's support for abortion”

Spontaneous abortion is a very common experience for women. It is estimated that between 25-50% of conceptions spontaneously abort. Researchers do not have an exact figure due to the fact that when this occurs very early on, many women do not know that they were ever pregnant.

Miscarriage Statistics- A Look at the Figures and Definitions Miscarriage statistics can be dramatic. Miscarriage reportedly occurs in 20 percent of all pregnancies. However, according to some sources, this may be an inaccurate number. Many women, before realizing a life has begun forming within them, may miscarry without knowing it-assuming their miscarriage is merely a heavier period. Therefore, the miscarriage rate may be closer to 40 or 50 percent.

That’s quite a few newly created eternal souls that end up in the garbage bin. Where’s the outrage for all of those poor souls? Why aren’t you soliciting congress to pour money into research that would prevent all miscarriages?

Further, 30,000 already born children die of starvation every day. That’s nearly 11 million preventable deaths a year, and about 400 million since Roe v Wade was decided in ‘73. (http://www.starvation.net/)

Starvation is a slow and PAINFUL death. One would think that would factor in as far as priorities go.

The 95-10 Initiative [95% reduction in 10 years] seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America…

…We cannot deny that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, but we also cannot turn our heads and pretend that our children are not engaging in risky behavior or the fact that contraception is not 100 percent effective. The Federal government has made a commitment to support prevention efforts and allocated a record $288.3 million in FY 2005 for family planning under title X. The program provides access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them. A priority is given to low-income persons.

But we begin with President Obama at Notre Dame and the debate over abortion… …They‘re working together, however, on legislation to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thereby reduce the number of abortions.

REP. TIM RYAN (D), OHIO: …most abortions are performed on women who live within 200 percent of the poverty level, so this is really about access to prevention. …at the same time, incentivize adoption and those social service programs, that if a woman does get pregnant, she has the wherewithal to bring the baby to term, know that the baby will have health care, make sure that if she‘s in college, that there are child care centers at the college campus, all of those things, nurses for newborns, those programs that would encourage the woman to bring the baby to term.

[I’m 40, I’ve been a news junkie since I was 15, and I can’t remember the last time I heard a social conservative or Republican make those suggestions.]

REP. ROSA DELAURO (D), CONNECTICUT: …But it is a combination -- as Tim Ryan pointed out -- of prevention, and if you don‘t want to deal with the issue of prevention or with contraception, then you may not be serious about wanting to reduce that need for abortions or unintended pregnancies.

That pretty much sums it up. “Just say no” appears to be the only “solution” that social conservatives have to offer, (and I’m not talking about self-determination, I’m talking about coerced indoctrination.) blissfully unaware that stifling and suppressing the sexual - or creative force of human nature, only ensures that it comes out as the destructive force of human nature.

As far as “just say no” goes, you may as well be trying to prevent relationships.

~~~

The same thoughtful considerations were discussed on Chris Matthews on March 6th of this year, except this time Ken Blackwell of the FRC was also on, and had nothing more to offer than pompous bluster and the “Just say no” “outlaw it” mantra.

~~~

Anonymous: “Jesse Jackson once called abortion racist because it disproportionately kills minority children”

Where? When? Until you provide a source for that information, it’s nothing more than a baseless assertion, but I’ll humor you:

Disproportionate African-American POVERTY is racist. It’s a connection between poverty and racism, abortion falls under that category.

~~~

Anonymous: “also, the suffering experienced by innocent disadvantaged inner city kids who have no choice but to attend dangerous schools and mix with violent gangs greatly dwarfs any suffering experienced by the evil conspirators in U.S. custody who are guilty of planning the death of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 and have shown no remorse

would be nice to see TTF apply the kind of rage they feel over the treatment of murderous monsters to the conditions imposed on innocent disadvantaged children by liberals in America”

(Oh the pain, the pain of it all. Won’t somebody please think about the children!)

Where was your concern for “the children” these past eight years of “stick it to the poor and give it to the rich?

Republicans for the rich, Democrats for the impoverished children, every step of the way, and I watched it all happen live on CSPAN, every day - I am a first hand eye-witness.

If you want to argue better ways of helping the poor, I have no objections. But cut the nonsense as to feigning concern for them.

The past eight years have been an orgy of corruption, greed, waste, fraud and abuse. Your willful ignorance is blinding. But you don’t miss a trick when it comes to your daily talking points, do you? Regurgitating all of it, verifying none of it.

(Did your "family" groups have to tell you to distract from the issues by characterizing liberal’s concern for the law as concern for monsters, or is that something you came up with on your own?)

All of that is just the tip of the iceberg. 600 billion (1 trillion estimated) on an unnecessary and illegal war with a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11, resulting in millions of deaths, injuries, maimings, refugees and destroyed lives. Yet even when it comes to our own, Republicans cut veterans’ benefits - in the name of "fiscal discipline."

Social conservatives may be anti-abortion, but you’re not only not pro-life, you’re definitively pro-death.

~~~

Anonymous: “will they ever repent?”

Anyone who feels bad about not living up to the Golden Rule when it comes to the treatment of others, IS repentant. Hence the “bleeding heart” part of the “bleeding heart liberals” pejorative -- we supposedly care too much.

The “morality” and “values” of self-proclaimed socially conservative Christians have all the properties of human dung, except the only thing it fertilizes is your own egos.

When you die, you won’t be separate from your “enemies,” and you will feel their pain, and will have to live with that.

I apply that same understanding to my own life, and to be candid, I’m often lousy at practicing the Golden Rule. But when possible, I do atone - no matter how humiliating.

Monday, May 18, 2009

"Exodus International today announced the reformation of its church network as the Exodus Church Association."----By the time I read the article and clicked on the “Exodus Church Association” link, the site had been shut down. So I Googled it and found the cached home page, where I found an article called:

"Caught in the Middle: How to Talk about HomosexualityWritten by Jonathan Inman"----The site is back up now, but without a link to that article, at least not on the home page, fortunately though, it’s on the Exodus website. I have no idea how old this is, or who Jonathan Inman is, but this article is just one contradiction after another. It’s essentially a litany of suggestions on how to condemn we gays and our pro-gay advocates, without appearing insulting.

As usual, the attempt to not be insulting is more insulting than the insults themselves:

When talking with people who believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle option, suggesting that homosexuality is sinful can appear stupid and rude -- if not homophobic, unloving and abusive…

…We must bring the gospel of God's grace where it is most needed: to the vocally anti-Christian pro-gay activist, or to the mild-mannered clergy who says the love of Jesus means affirming homosexuality as God's gift…

He begins each segment with a title and a Biblical quote. For example:

Patiently Listen

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires." (James 1:19-20)

...Don't just listen for opportunities to find fault or critique...When a factual claim is made, politely ask to have it substantiated with reference to a verifiable source.

I started dissecting the whole thing for a post (which may or may not come to fruition), when I ran across this little gem...

Mercifully Pursue

"Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear -- hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." (Jude 22-23)

Now that, takes the cake. Out of all the verses dealing with mercy in the Bible (24 according to my “Holman Concise Topical Concordance”), he chooses the one that could not be more ironic for the “ministry” of Exodus.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

To all the LaBarberas, Barbers, Livelys, Hutchersons, Camerons, Griggs', Wildmons, Browns, Harps, Donnellys, Boissoins, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (please feel free to add to that list in the comments section), you've demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you live to hate gay people.

Hating us is the lubricant to your mental machinery. Your soilent supremacy, if you will.

So to all ye who despise us with glee as you insist it's your religion that motivates you, this one's for you:

He used to be somebody's babySomeone used to hold him close, and rock him gentlyHe used to be the light in someone's eyesHe used to matter, he used to matterSomeone cared if he lived or diedSomeone held him in their arms - when he criedAnd when he hurt, someone kept the world awaySomeone loved him, someone loved him

He used to be somebody's babySomeone used to hold him close, and rock him gentlyHe used to be the light in someone's eyesHe used to matter, he used to matterHe used to matter

That was then, that was so long agoLong before they came and took his soulLong before he bacame invisibleThat was when, he wasn't human garbage then

He used to be somebody's babySomeone used to hold him close, and rock him gentlyHe used to be the light in someone's eyesHe used to matter, he used to matterHe used to matterHe used to be somebody's baby

(For the record, I just posted this at SoulForce. This is pretty much verbatim)---Has anyone else ever heard Judges 19 used as a clobber passage?

I caught this the other day on a radio program (which I later transcribed so I could quote from).

The Judges 19 story is almost exactly like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, except for a couple of potentially important details, but anti-gay social conservatives generally tend to have a thinking handicap. I feel pretty confident in betting that they'd use and abuse this verse in a second if they knew about it. Who could pass up a new anti-gay hate toy?---For reference, here’s the relevant portion of the Sodom and Gomorrah story from Genesis 19:

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.""No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."

9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

10 But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. 11 Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.

pastor Dr. Robert Lewis: Ephraim was a watchman with my God a prophet, yet the snare of the board catcher is in all his ways, and there is only hostility in the House of God.

And listen to verse 9, they have gone deep in depravity, as in the days of Gibeah. Now if you’re a Bible scholar, that should turn all kinds of lights on, ‘cause Gibeah and the event of Gibeah, is in Judges 19, when a Levitical priest comes in Gibeah, the city of Gibeah, and he’s got his concubine, this young lady with him, and they go to house themselves in Israel for protection, and when they get there, the men of Gibeah come out and bang on the doors and shout and kick in the roof, and all of that, and demand that the priest come out so that they can have sexual intercourse with him. That story is found in Judges 19.

And here's the rest of that story:

20 "You are welcome at my house," the old man said. "Let me supply whatever you need. Only don't spend the night in the square." 21 So he took him into his house and fed his donkeys. After they had washed their feet, they had something to eat and drink.

22 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him."

23 The owner of the house went outside and said to them, "No, my friends, don't be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don't do this disgraceful thing. 24 Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don't do such a disgraceful thing."

25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.

27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, "Get up; let's go." But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.

29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it said, "Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt. Think about it! Consider it! Tell us what to do!"

The similarities are too many to list

Differences:The woman in this story did get gang raped, implying that the men were bisexual? Oh yeah, she also gets cut up into twelve parts.

So, I’m thinking it’s more the implication of bisexuality than the cutting up of the concubine. Plus, cutting someone into 12 pieces isn't very angelic, like the guests of lo... ... ...I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing your average reason-deprived homophobe being bothered by the "limb by limb, into twelve parts" part.

Then again, they've proven time and time again that they really could be that ignorant...----So, Judges 19, anyone?

After 400 years of religious freedom for those who wanted to own and distribute Bibles on their own property in America, the Governor of Colorado has put an end to it. SB08-200, signed into law last week will prohibit the issuing, circulating, and distributing of Leviticus 20:13...

That link leads to the bill summary, and as usual, has nothing to do with the reading of minds or the distribution of Bibles, or Biblical hate speech. It has to do with prohibitions against discrimination:

The committee returned to order. Representative Judd presented Senate Bill 08-200 concerning the expansions of prohibitions against discrimination. The bill adds the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation to nondiscrimination statutes for 23 areas, including housing, employment not covered by House Bill 07-025, education, public accommodations and health care. It also allows for the appointment of people who have been, or might be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, to the Civil Rights Commission. Prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of sex, marital status, disability, age, national origin, ancestry, and religion, are added as necessary for consistency in all nondiscrimination statutes including consumer credit transactions, jury service, issuance of a license to practice law, and public accommodations. Violations of anti-discrimination laws are misdemeanors subject to fines up to $5,000, two years imprisonment in a county jail, or both.

As you may have noticed, BabbaZee’s a bit dull. So BabbaZee's description of this image should come as no surprise:

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Alan Chambers believes just the opposite: that the new gay marriage bonanza is a trap.

"My major concern is that homosexuality is a counterfeit of what God intended us to experience in human sexuality," said Chambers, president of Exodus International and a former homosexual who left the lifestyle 17 years ago. "There will be young people who are like I used to be, who will see homosexuality as their only option for happiness and relationship fulfillment. [Normalizing] gay marriage is a stumbling block for them. A lot of people look at this from a policy perspective. But I think of all of those hearts that are searching for something legitimate in a way that's absolutely not able to meet their need"

“My major concern is that homosexuality is a counterfeit of what God intended us to experience in human sexuality…"

= Our love is fake.

“…said Chambers, president of Exodus International and a former homosexual who left the lifestyle 17 years ago.”

Former homosexual = used to think fake love was real, but now knows the difference (except for those pesky same-sex "temptations").

Left the [homosexual] lifestyle = left the sexually promiscuous lifestyle.

And apparently -- according to decades old San Francisco bath house studies -- it's true. Everyone who identifies as LGB or T has millions of sex partners in a lifetime.

Alan Chambers: "There will be young people who are like I used to be, who will see homosexuality as their only option for happiness and relationship fulfillment. [Normalizing] gay marriage is a stumbling block for them.”

Apparently the 99% of heterosexual relationships and weddings that young people are exposed to is all for naught. That 1% exposure to gay relationships is all it takes to convince gay teens that fake happiness is their "only option."

I can kind of see where he’s coming from. Since our love is fake, and the happiness that our relationships bring us is fake, our rights are fake too. Therefore, denying us our rights (and eventually our relationships), isn’t really denying us anything at all.

No one is saying that change is easy… …But we find hundreds of former homosexuals who have found a large degree of change--attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors [celibacy], lessening of homosexual temptations [denial], strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity [behavior], correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender [behavior]. Some former homosexuals marry and some don't, but marriage is not the measuring stick; spiritual growth and obedience are.

And there’s the rub. The goal isn't heterosexuality, it’s all about being a good anti-gay Christian.

If you’re Jewish or atheist or Hindu with unwanted same-sex attractions, you’ll just have to convert if you want the help of Exodus.

Otherwise, you can go to hell, literally.

From that same page:

Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although "success rates" vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic. For details and review of several studies, see the link below.

Remember from above, “change” means: celibacy, denial, behavior, and behavior -- NOT heterosexuality. And the study they link to counts celibacy as successful “change.”

Not surprising, as the study is NOT peer reviewed, and admittedly sets the bar for success, nearly as low as it is possible to set a bar for success:

Chapter 1, page 15: The Exodus Project [conflict of interest, anyone?] reported here was directed at answering two simple questions: (1)…is it ever possible for an individual who has a homosexual orientation to change that orientation via religious means? (2) Is the attempt to change harmful, as so many today claim?

As part of their “Christian Ethical Responses to Homosexual Behavior,” in their quest to define “homosexual behavior as a moral prohibition,” they endorse mass murder twice, on pages 55 and 57, by citing Leviticus 20:13, without so much as a whisper as to the immorality of such a position.

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

And voila, all we millions of LGBT Americans are reduced to a “this,” to be approached, taken, and understood as a "policy" issue.

Alan Chambers: "But I think of all of those hearts that are searching for something legitimate in a way that's absolutely not able to meet their need"

Who the intercourse is he to speak for every LGBT person on the planet?

And on a personal note, I have NEVER seen him wax passionate about his relationship with his wife, his job, his children, nor do I recall ever having seen him genuinely smile. It’s like he’s an empty shell just going through the motions.

You'd think this "genuine" love that he's discovered (to the rest of our chagrin) would produce some sort of discernable liveliness.

Of course that absence of passion might make sense if your true goal was to be “right.” Naturally, the more you force the outside world to conform to your inside world, the more “right” you can pretend to be.

This page is basically a crash course on how to spread bigotry and hatred without coming across as bigoted and hateful.

They start with the assertion that:

Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:

"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose,they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us."

Obfuscating the true message of intolerance by tempering it with a disingenuous message of tolerance. Doublespeak at its best: We have the right to live as we please, but only to the extent that we live our lives as they please. Justified by implying that our right to marry would infringe on their thoughts about marriage.

Their use of the word ‘marriage’ is a euphemism for love. It’s another purposeful obfuscation to avoid saying that our love is fake - which would make them look hateful.

They then advise wanna-be bigots to NEVER say you’re against same-sex marriage, and to only say that you’re against the “redefinition” of it.

Apparently saying you’re against SSM causes them a 10% drop in polls.---They then play the race card (in the effort to counter claims of racism?) by claiming that 60% of African Americans are against gay marriage. Which is really not a credit, it’s an insult. In other words, 60% of African Americans were duped into believing the lies they were told by people like Maggie Gallagher and organizations like her's.---They advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment. This is something that I don’t think enough people understand the full motive behind. It’s an attempt to wrest the power and check of the Supreme Court (if not all courts), from any constitutional interpretation on the matter, other than to rule that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. It would instantly nullify all same-sex marriages in the union.

(No more "activist judges," at least when it comes to we godless sodomites.)

One of the reasons the courts exist is specifically to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. Anti-gays understand this, thus the need to go over the courts' heads via anti-gay Constitutional Amendment.---About benefits: “If medical proxies aren’t working, let’s fix that problem. If people need health care, let’s get them health care. Don’t mess with marriage.”

Again, baloney. The anti-gays are itching to shut down any expression of LGBT’s. That includes websites, books, parades, bars, protests, LGBT groups of any kind, even just coming out of the closet. Furthermore, their vocal objections to the striking down of Lawrence v Texas (decriminalizing consensual gay sex) indicates that they heartily endorse our imprisonment.

And if they accomplish that, capital punishment is next. After all, God sanctions it in the Bible, and even says it would be our own fault:

Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

They then have the audacity to claim that the high (nearly 50%) divorce rate is the “reason we should be strengthening marriage.”

An especially egregious claim, as the bulk of this page’s reasoning is of the “won’t somebody please think about the children” mantra.

The phrases, Mother and Father, man and woman, husband and wife, or some variation thereof, are used no less than 16 times - usually in the context of "what's best for children."

Absence of a male or female parent, via divorce, resulting in single parenting = A-OK.

Yet they present the insanely hypocritical argument that two parents of the same gender should be prevented from raising children because it’s not the IDEAL.

Clearly, this is not about the children. It’s about personal selfishness at the expense of children._____________________Edit: changed the word "gullible" to "duped." 5-11-09 @ 6:07 AM

Thursday, May 7, 2009

“Chris tried to play hardball, but played an ineffectual game of softball with Tancredo, who tried to paint "Intelligent Design" as being evolution with god behind it. It's not; it's creationism, pure and simple, and he knows it. Sad thing is that Matthews did not know it.”

I would have worded that differently by saying that it’s a political power grab by the Religious Right to usurp the scientific method of discovery in order to take over the public school system for the sake of indoctrinating American youth... ...but that’s just me.

Chris Matthews: Welcome back to Hardball. Does the Republican Party have a problem when it comes to believing in science? Check out this exchange I had with Republican Congressional leader Mike Pence of Indiana last night, when I asked him about evolution.

Chris Matthews: I think you believe in evolution, but you’re afraid to say so because your conservative constituency might find that offensive.

Mike Pence (video): No, I’ve said to you, Chris, I believe with all my heart that God created the heavens and the Earth, the seas and all that is in them. How He did that, I’ll ask him about someday.

Chris Matthews: So are Republicans afraid to believe in things like evolution? Tom Tancredo is a former Republican congressman, of course, from Colorado, and of course, a man who ran for president, and delighted us in those debates. Mr. Tancredo, thank you sir. You definitely were a lighting rod in the debates I was dealing with.

Tom Tancredo: You’re welcome. Delighted…

Chris Matthews: Well thank you. Look I don’t want to get into religious tests…

Chris Matthews: Ha ha ha. Look I don’t want to get into religious tests, we all have our own doubts about religion, our own beliefs, sometimes they’re overlapping each other, sometimes we believe things on different levels, and we sometimes have conflicts in what we believe… …what we were taught in our religion. Most of it I think sort of believe that God created the Earth, we have a belief in a deity, we also believe that somehow He did it through evolution--there was some kind of guidance to it from the beginning certainly, and He knew what He was doing -- He or She if you want to get really broad minded -- knew what He was doing and He did it His way. He didn’t do it in 7 days like we were taught, but He did it His way. Is that sort of your belief?

Tom Tancredo: I do, I believe what you’ve just described, by the way, is something that we call Intelligent Design. And therefore I’m not sure we have much of a debate. There’s Darwinian Evolution, There’s Intelligent Design, that’s the two conflicting points of view on this. And I suggest, Chris, that when you look at this very carefully, and believe me, I’m not a theologian, I’m not a scientist, I’m just a layman that looks at the evidence I have in front of me. And when you do look at it carefully, it does seem to me that the one is equal to the other, in terms of the number of people who support it, in terms--especially of their backgrounds and the research that’s out there, it’s not so clear cut.

You know, even Darwin said that in order to prove evolution, his kind of evolution, you would need literally thousands, maybe millions of fossils that were transitional, we should be able to find them. But of course, we haven’t been able to find them. We can all believe--I certainly believe that evolution occurs within species naturally. Human beings have grown taller over time. That’s certainly true, but crossing a species, there is no evidence of that, you have to make an assumption. And I’m just saying that assuming that, is just as tough as assuming that there’s intelligent design.

Chris Matthews: Ok, let me talk to you about what I think are the extremes on this position. That one extreme would be, there is no god, it’s all sort of random, we all ended up here, we don’t even know why we’re here, right? That would be a random, totally secular view of everything, I don’t think you or I are at that end.

The other end would be, it’s just like it’s written down in the Bible, we don’t have to figure out science, it’s all there. And if you really get into the Bible, and you’re totally literal about it -- and I don’t want to knock anybody’s belief -- you get to point of having to deny all the fossils out there because they all predated 4,000 of written history in the Bible, back to Adam and Eve, through the prophets all the way back.

Then you get into that crazy idea, well there’s a bunch of liberals that went around and buried all these bones in the ground to make it look like there was ancient history. Well, I don’t think most people believe that. I think most people accept the fact, there were dinosaurs, they were around here millions of years ago, it wasn’t covered in the Bible, etc. etc.

So, the question comes down to this, and this is why it’s relevant to discussions of climate change. Do you accept the scientific method? Now, I went to a Catholic school and I--the Christian brother taught us the first day, he said, now you can believe in evolution or not, we believe it here. And from the beginning of the education we had in biology, you had the kingdoms the classes the families, the genus’ the species, this is the way you learned about life. And among the way you understood things was the families, and in the family were People - us, and also apes.

Now, if you say there was no connection between the two, ever in history, that there was never any evolution that led to the creation of you and me -- that led to the creation, I accept the idea of guidance, and if you want to call it intelligent design, that’s fine with me -- but it ended up that way. If you don’t accept the science if you discover it, then you are really basing your whole life, just on belief. And then, you have a hard time dealing a person like that when it comes to scientific evidence on climate change, if they simply don’t want to believe it, ‘cause they don’t want to look at evidence. Are you a person that believes in the scientific method? Did you study biology in school like I did, which is based on these assumptions of evolution?

Tom Tancredo: Yes I went to Catholic schools for 12 years, yes I had biology, yes--first of all let me go back earlier to the first part of your statement about the time sequence. In Intelligent Design, there is no argument about whether the world was made eight thousand or eight billion years ago. Nobody argues that, it could have been any of those things, and there’s no religious dogma leading that particular discussion, it’s not a part of Intelligent Design. And so I certainly can accept that, the fact is that when you think about--if you go back and assume that all--you have to start thinking about what the beginning? You can see on the micro level, we see evolution, but can not make the assumption on it about the macro level, ‘cause there’s nothing there to look at, we have no scientific data.

You are absolutely right to say that we should use the scientific methods to make these kinds of decisions, but honest to god, Chris, there is no scientific data there, there’s nothing there we can look at to see that we’ve made this great leap. And so it’s an assumption, just like it’s an assumption about Intelligent Design. And I’m just saying to you, they’re equally valuable. I think they should be taught in schools together. Here’s a group of people, highly educated, well rounded and well respected in their field who believe in evolution, Darwinian Evolution. Here’s a group of people, highly respected, who believe in Intelligent Design. These are two theories, we should present both of them.

Chris Matthews: Ok, what’s the difference between saying you believe in evolution but you believe God’s behind it? What the difference between that and Intelligent Design?

Tom Tancredo: Well I don’t think there is an--much at all

Chris Matthews: So then you just have to have a little introduction in each chapter in the biology book that says, God did this, God did this, God did this, and that’s Intelligent Design. I mean, is that the distinction?

Tom Tancredo: You don’t even have to call it god, you don’t have to say anything, you just have to say that these people believe that there was something that designed all of this. You can call it god or…

Chris Matthews: I’m not going to fight you on that, congressman. I guess our distinction here is, are we willing to accept the scientific method, and if we discover these artifacts or these connections, the “missing link” is what it’s always been called, that we’re not just going to reject it and say, that can’t be because that runs in the face of my religion. Are we going to accept that there could be climate change and man could be causing it, and we better damn well do some changes if that’s the case?

All I want is an understanding of how reasonable we’re being in understanding the world that God gave us. That’s all I’m asking. And you say we’re all trying to understand it together.

Tom Tancredo: That’s a wonderful way to put it, the world that God gave us, all of us I think are looking exactly for that answer, that understanding. And I appreciate the way you put it, because frankly, I don’t think there’s a heck of a lot of argument here, although we’ve done we’ve done a pretty good job for seven minutes or so.

Chris Matthews: Well I appreciate that. Thank you for coming on, but I think we got way of the course of our secular beliefs, which I think I’d like to stick to. But I’m trying to figure out, if we’re every going to understand this argument over climate change, unless we accept the fact that we’re trying to get the truth, and not simply always stepping back and saying, I’m skeptical of all this, and just ending the conversation there. At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud.

Thank you Tom Tancredo, run for president again. We’ll cover you.

Tom Tancredo: Next time. We’ll do it again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tom Tancredo:--These are two theories, we should present both of them.--And I’m just saying to you, they’re equally valuable.--you just have to say that these people believe that there was something that designed all of this. You can call it god or….

Both are just “theories” eh…

Here’s my theory:

Me: By characterizing ID as science-worthy, Tancredo attempts to raise the theological tenets of ID to the level of scientific inquiry.

In essence, my theory can beat up your theory, Tom. But try the quantum physics guys, I hear they're looking for the "God particle."

Matthews nails it in the end though.

Chris Matthews: But I’m trying to figure out, if we’re every going to understand this argument over climate change, unless we accept the fact that we’re trying to get the truth, and not simply always stepping back and saying, I’m skeptical of all this, and just ending the conversation there. At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud.

"At some point you have to have a method of understanding truth, and make some assumptions, or else you’re stuck in the mud."

Well fortunately there’s scientists a whole section of society that would just love to answer that question. But what the heck, I’ll give it shot.

Unlike the “theory” of Intelligent Design, the “theory” of evolution employs the use of scientific inquiry for its information.

The scientific method, and the use of Scientific Inquiry is a fact, and can be proven. Also, scientific inquiry is based on the use of logic, and Logic requires critical thinking, and as we all know, critical thinking is of the devil... ...but I digress.~~~A Google search for “scientific inquiry” brought up these:

1) Scientific inquiry is a term that encompasses a variety of techniques that scientists use to explore the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence they find.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Love Not Laws aspires to show that Margaret Mead was correct when she said "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." None of the people who appear in this video received any compensation for their time.

None of the people who worked on this video received any compensation for their time. All materials used to create the video were donated. We simply came together to promote the ideals of love and equality.

We’ve been keeping track of this at SoulForce, so the following is based on the highlights of that thread.---Thanks to Anita Bryant and her “fans,” there’s been a gay adoption ban in Florida since 1977.---Last November, an Orlando Sentinel published an article titled: “Miami judge rules against Florida gay adoption ban”

“A Miami Dade Circuit judge [Cindy S. Lederman] ruled today that a gay man and his partner should be able to adopt the two foster children they have raised for four years. [Saying,] “There is no rational basis to preclude homosexuals from adopting”

That article is now gone from the original link. Fortunately, Matt Algren who started the thread, published it in full on SoulForce (linked above) and on his blog, and just in case you think I’m a lying because I’m a militant homosexual activist, here’s a Google search on the matter. Go nuts.---Frank Martin Gill and his partner have been taking care of these kids for years now, and asked the ACLU to help them adopt the boys. Here’s a brief profile on the family:

I don’t know if “politics” were involved in the deletion of those articles (and the cached pages of the commentary), but there are a few things of interest to note.

Mike Thomas: The attorney general's main expert witnesses was George Rekers, a Miami clinical psychologist and Baptist minister who believes gays are immoral and has written that gay activists are trying to legalize pedophilia. He argues gays are more prone to depressive disorders, substance abuse and unstable relationships, disqualifying them as adoptive parents.

Now, these are the portions of Mike Thomas’ commentary that caught my eye:

DCF is fighting Gill because it fears a political backlash from social conservatives if he is allowed to adopt the boys. They could bring intense political pressure to ban gay foster parents. That would be devastating, particularly as the economy worsens, the number of abuse cases rises and the state's resources dwindle.

This is not about what's best for kids. It's a political agenda by people who consider homosexuals sinful deviants. And the image of gays living in stable relationships, driving minivans, and caring for damaged children undercuts their cause and their moral superiority.And now among their allies they can include DCF Secretary George Sheldon, Gov. Charlie Crist and Attorney General Bill McCollum.

Now the state Legislature is faced with a bill aimed at overturning the state's 1977 ban on gay adoption, and Florida's Third District Court of Appeals must resolve a lawsuit over the issue stemming from Gill's case. The case is likely to move on to the Florida Supreme Court...

...The legislation is expected to die without coming to a vote before the Legislature adjourns next week...

...Former state legislator Baxley and other conservatives want the state to maintain its gay adoption ban and support the Department of Children and Families' decision to fight Lederman's ruling and the Legislature's decision for a seventh straight year to maintain the law.

They say it's better for the children to remain in foster care and keep their chance to be adopted by a heterosexual person or couple than to be adopted by a gay person or couple. More than 3,000 children in Florida's foster care system await adoption, most of them having suffered abuse or neglect.

"What do you think? If a man owns a hundred sheep, and one of them wanders away, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the hills and go to look for the one that wandered off?”

The Christian conservative version might go something like this:

"What do you think? If gay couples can provide loving and nurturing homes to 3000 children, and one of them has the chance to be adopted by a heterosexual couple, wouldn’t Christian conservatives leave the 2,999 to languish in foster care for the chances of that one?”